Seventh International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, October11-13, 2006

Yildiz TechnicalUniversity, Istanbul, Turkey

Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Rectangular Columns

S. Kim, H. C. Mertol, S. Rizkalla, P. Zia,

North Carolina State University,
Department of Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering, Raleigh, NC, USA

A. Mirmiran
Florida International University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Miami, FL, USA

Abstract
This paper summarizes the test results of an extensive research program sponsored by
the US Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council to examine the
behavior of high-strength concrete rectangular columns subjected to concentric and
eccentric loading conditions. The variables considered in this investigation were
concrete strength ranging from 7.9 ksi (55 MPa) to 16.5 ksi (114 MPa), longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement ratios. Test results were combined with reported data in the
literature to examine the validity of the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specification for high-strength concrete up to 18 ksi (124 MPa). Research findings
indicate that the current specification overestimate the load carrying capacity of
columns with high-strength concrete under both concentric and eccentric loading
conditions. This paper recommends several provisions to the current AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications to extend the use of high-strength concrete up to 18 ksi
(124 MPa) for axially and eccentrically loaded short columns.

Keywords: High-strength concrete, Rectangular, Column, Concentric, Eccentric

Introduction
The use of high-strength concrete (HSC) for bridges and high-rise buildings as become
very popular due to development in concrete technology and availability of various
types of mineral and chemical admixtures such as silica fume, fly ash, retarders, and
superplasticizers. HSC could lead to smaller member sizes for compression members
and therefore provide considerable savings associated with material costs and reduction
of dead loads. Furthermore, due to the superior durability of HSC, significant reduction
of the maintenance requirements and an increase in the service life of the structure can
be achieved.

1
Most of the current design specifications, such as AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, are based on tests conducted using normal-strength concrete (NSC). The
research reported in this paper was performed to evaluate the behavior of high-strength
concrete columns and to provide recommended provisions to extend the current
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications to include concrete strengths up to 18
ksi (124 MPa) for short columns.

Experimental Program
Test Specimens

A total of thirty rectangular columns with concrete strengths ranging from 7.9 ksi (55
MPa) to 16.5 ksi (114 MPa) were tested under monotonically increasing concentric and
eccentric loading. The test parameters for concentric loading included concrete strength,
specimen size, longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios. For eccentric loading,
the parameters were concrete strength, specimen size and eccentricity of the applied
load. The concrete cover used was ½ in (13 mm) to the face of the tie for all the test
specimens. All columns were reinforced with six longitudinal steel bars and confined
with #4 (φ13) bars as transverse reinforcements. The two ends of the test specimens
were reinforced with closely spaced ties and confined with external steel tubes, as
shown in Figure 1, to avoid premature failure at the two ends of the test specimens. All
columns were cast vertically to simulate typical column construction practice as shown
in Figure 2. Details of concentric and eccentric columns are given in Table 1 and Table
2. Geometric overview of the columns and instrumentations are shown in Figure 3.

s15R7-ρ3

s15R7-ρ3

Figure 1 Typical Test Figure 2 Casting Specimens

Specimen

2
 Table 1 Details of Concentrically Loaded Columns
Longitudinal Reinforcement Transverse Reinf. Concrete
b×h×L
Column ID
(mm) ρl fy Spacing ρh fyh f’c
No. & Size
(%) (MPa) (mm) (%) (MPa) (MPa)
8R9-ρ1 6 #4 1.11 407 229 0.91 476 57.0
8R4½-ρ1 6 #4 1.11 407 114 1.82 476 57.0
8R9-ρ2.5 6 #6 2.44 434 229 0.91 476 56.3
8R4½-ρ2.5 6 #6 2.44 434 114 1.82 476 56.3
8R9-ρ4 2 #7 + 4 #8 4.04 421,414 229 0.91 476 54.3
8R4½-ρ4 2 #7 + 4 #8 4.04 421,414 114 1.82 476 54.3
229×305
11R9-ρ1 ×1016 6 #4 1.11 462 229 0.91 496 77.9
11R9-ρ2.5 6 #6 2.44 434 229 0.91 496 78.6
11R9-ρ4 2 #7 + 4 #8 4.04 427,421 229 0.91 496 77.9
15R9-ρ1 6 #4 1.11 400 229 0.91 496 106.0
15R4½-ρ1 6 #4 1.11 400 114 1.82 496 106.0
15R9-ρ2.5 6 #6 2.44 434 229 0.91 496 104.5
15R4½-ρ2.5 6 #6 2.44 434 114 1.82 496 104.5
s14R7-ρ2 6 #4 1.9 462 178 3.10 427 96.5
s14R7-ρ3 6 #5 2.95 421 178 3.10 427 97.2
s14R7-ρ4 6 #6 4.19 434 178 3.10 427 98.6
s15R7-ρ2 6 #4 1.9 400 178 1.55 455 104.8
178×229
s15R3½-ρ2 6 #4 1.9 400 89 3.10 455 104.8
×914
s15R7-ρ3 6 #5 2.95 434 178 1.55 455 105.0
s15R3½-ρ3 6 #5 2.95 434 89 3.10 455 105.0
s15R7-ρ4 6 #6 4.19 434 178 1.55 455 100.7
s15R3½-ρ4 6 #6 4.19 434 89 3.10 455 102.5

Table 2 Details of Eccentrically Loaded Columns

Longitudinal Reinforcement Trans. Reinf. Concrete
Column b×h×L
e (mm) ρl fy Spacing f’c
ID (mm) No. & Size
(%) (MPa) (mm) (MPa)
8RE1 31.0 54
421,414
8RE2 63.0 54
229×305
11RE1 28.2 2 #7 + 4 #8 4.04 229 75
×1016
17RE1 31.0 427,421 113
17RE2 62.5 114
s14RE1 20.6 97
178×229
s16RE1 23.1 6 #6 4.19 434 178 108
×914
s16RE2 47.8 108

P
Concentric b

LVDT’s
h
Test
L Region e
b
Eccentric
h
Strain Long. Steel
Gauges on Trans. Steel
P
Figure 3 Geometric Overview and Instrumentations Figure 4 Eccentric Loading

3
Material Properties

The three target concrete strengths considered in this investigation were developed after
laboratory and plant trial batches (Logan 2005). The corresponding water to
cementitious material ratios for target strengths of 10 ksi (69 MPa), 14 ksi (97 MPa) and
18 ksi (124 MPa) were 0.3, 0.26 and 0.25, respectively. Retarders and superplasticizers
were used in all mixes to achieve reasonable workability for the HSC. Three 4×8 in.
(100×200 mm) cylinders were cast for each test specimen to obtain concrete strength at
the time of testing.

Both the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement used for test specimens were Grade
60 steel. A 220 kip (979 kN) capacity MTS testing machine was used to determine the
fundamental properties of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. The yield
stress of longitudinal reinforcement ranged from 58 ksi (400 MPa) to 67 ksi (462 MPa).
The transverse reinforcement exhibited non-linear behavior within the yielding range,
without a well defined yield point; therefore, the 0.2 percent offset method was used to
determine the yield strength.

Instrumentation and Test Set-Up

The axial shortening of the columns was measured using four 100 mm pi gages, located
at the mid region of the test specimens. Two of the pi gages were attached to the
threaded rods embedded in the core concrete while the other two gages were mounted
on the concrete surface. Two additional 100 mm pi gauges were used to measure the
transverse deformations at the mid region. The strains in the longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement were measured using electric resistance strain gages, which were attached
to two longitudinal and two transverse reinforcements for concentric loading case and
four longitudinal and four transverse reinforcements for the eccentrically loaded
specimens. Three linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT) were used to
measure the lateral deflections of the eccentrically loaded specimens.

Readings from the pi gages, strain gages, applied load and stroke of the testing machine
were recorded using a Vishay Data Acquisition System during testing. A 2,000 kip
(8896 kN) capacity compression testing machine was used to apply the compression
load monotonically at a rate of 0.36 mm/min. The tests continued until a significant
drop in load-resistance of the columns. Thin layers of hydrostone were used at the top
and the bottom ends of each column for leveling and to ensure uniform distribution of
the applied load across the cross section. For eccentric tests, the load was applied with
specific eccentricities through a specially designed curved plates and roller bearing
assembly as shown in Figure 4.

Test Results and Analysis

Concentrically Loaded Columns

Typical measured axial load-axial shortening behaviors of concentrically loaded

columns are shown in Figure 5. No cracks were observed up to the measured peak load
in most of the columns except in some specimens which were subjected to small
unintentional eccentricities during testing. At the peak load, the concrete cover suddenly

4
spalled off explosively at the mid region of the column for all the test specimens with
larger tie spacing as shown in Figure 6(a). Spalling of the concrete cover for the
columns with closer tie spacing occurred more slowly, as shown in Figure 6(b). Spalling
of the concrete cover was also accompanied by some loss of core concrete and resulted
in a sudden drop in load carrying capacity of the columns. This was more pronounced
for columns with higher concrete strength as shown in Figure 5. Relatively higher
residual resistance remained after the peak load was measured for columns with closer
tie spacing. This behavior suggests that the remaining resistance of the column is highly
dependent on the local bucking resistance of the individual longitudinal reinforcement.

1200
f'c =101~105 Mpa (14.6 ~ 15.2 ksi) 5000
b×h = 178×229 mm (7×9 in.)

900 s15C3½ -ρ2 4000

s15C3½ -ρ4
Load (kips)

s15C7-ρ2

Load (kN)
3000
600
s15C7-ρ4
2000

300
1000

0 0
0 0.25 0.5
0 0.75
0.25 1
0.5
Axial Shortening (in.)

Figure 5 Load-Axial Shortening Graphs for Concentrically Loaded Columns

(a) Column with Larger Tie Spacing (b) Column with Closer Tie Spacing
Figure 6 Typical Failure Shapes of Concentrically Loaded Columns

In general, at failure the measured longitudinal reinforcement strains exceeded the yield
strain of the reinforcement. At this stage, the measured transverse reinforcement strains

5
were considerably lower than the yield strain of the transverse reinforcement. Test
results indicated that the test specimens with wide transverse reinforcement spacing,
designed according to the provisions specified by AASTHO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, did not provide sufficient confinement to the concrete core. For some of
the columns with closer spacing of ties, the transverse reinforcement yielded at a later
stage of loading. The average measured axial concrete strains corresponding to the peak
load ranged from 0.0022 to 0.0029.

The nominal axial load carrying capacity of a column (Pn) can be determined using the
equilibrium equation as follows:

Pn = kf c' ( Ag − As ) + f y As

where the parameter k is the ratio of the in-place concrete strength to the control
cylinder compressive strength, f’c; Ag is the gross area of the column; fy is the yield
strength of longitudinal reinforcement and As is the area of longitudinal reinforcement.
The current k value specified by the AASHTO LRFD provision for concentrically
loaded column is 0.85 for NSC. The values of k parameter from the tested
concentrically loaded rectangular columns in this experimental program as well as other
reported tests in the literature, are shown in Figure 7.

f'c (MPa)
20.7 40.7 60.7 80.7 100.7 120.7 Experimental
1.2 (229×305 mm)
Experimental
(178×229 mm)
Cusson et al.

Yong et al.
1.0
Martinez et al.

k Sheik et al.

Saatcioglu et al.
0.8
Sharma et al.
AASHTO
LRFD Nagashima et al.
k = 0.75
AASHTO
0.6
3 6 9 12 15 18 Proposed
f'c (ksi)
Figure 7 Comparison of k Parameters of Concentrically Loaded Columns

Figure 7 suggests that the k parameter decreases with increasing concrete strength and is
less than 0.85 for HSC. Test results for this research program which include concrete
strengths ranging from 7.9 ksi (55 MPa) to 15.4 ksi (106 MPa) confirm the findings of
other researchers. Using a value of 0.85 for the k parameter may not be appropriate for
the concentrically loaded column with HSC. Based on a regression analysis of the
collected data, the following equation provides the proposed k values which are the
lower bound for the 90 percentile of the test data. The proposed equation maintains the
current value of k specified by the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and

6
reduces the value for compressive strengths of concrete up to 18 ksi (124 MPa).

 0.85 for f c' ≤ 69 

'
k =  f c in MPa
( '
) '
0.85 − 0.003 f c − 69 ≥ 0.75 for f c > 69 

Eccentrically Loaded Columns

Typical measured axial load-axial shortening behaviors of eccentrically loaded columns

with eccentricities of e/h values of 10 and 20 percent are shown in Figure 8. The figure
also shows concentrically loaded column to reflect the effect of load eccentricity on the
behavior of the column. In most of the columns, no cracks were observed on the
compressive side of the column up to the maximum load. In some cases, the cracking
sound could be heard at loads slightly lower than the maximum load. At the peak load,
spalling of the concrete cover and buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement were
observed simultaneously at the extreme compression face, as shown in Figure 9. As the
peak load was reached, inclined flexural cracks propagated quickly through the tension
side. The load carrying capacity of eccentrically loaded columns was reduced due to the
presence of the moment resulting from the eccentricity. The maximum measured
concrete compressive strain at the compression side ranged from 0.0025 to 0.0046 at the
peak load and consequently the strain in the longitudinal reinforcement exceeded the
yield strain.

Axial Shortening (mm)

0 5 10 15 20 25
1500
f'c = 54 Mpa (7.9 ksi) 6000
1200
8R9-ρ4 (e≈ 0%)
4500
Load (kips)

900 8RE1 (e=10%) Load (kN)

8RE2 (e=20%) 3000

600

300 1500

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Axial Shortening (in.)
Figure 8 Load-Axial Shortening Graphs for Eccentrically Loaded Columns

7
 (a) Column with 10 % Eccentricity (b) Column with 20 % Eccentricity
Figure 9 Typical Failure Shapes of Eccentrically Loaded Columns

Prediction of the load carrying capacity is based on a proposed equivalent rectangular

stress block (RSB) representing the stress distribution of concrete in the compression
zone for flexural members at ultimate strength. The RSB, with an intensity of α1 f’c, is
assumed to be applied over a zone bounded by β1 c from the extreme compression fiber
with an ultimate concrete strain, εcu, where α1 and β1 are the RSB parameters, f’c is the
cylinder concrete strength and c is the depth of the compression zone from the extreme
compression fiber. The values for RSB parameters were determined based on specially
designed bracket specimens tested also in this program and reported in a separate paper
(Mertol et al. 2006). The proposed RSB parameters were based on an extensive research
program to extend the applicability of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications for concrete strengths up to 124 MPa (Mertol et al. 2006). These RSB
parameters are given in Table 3. It should be noted that both of the relationships assume
the ultimate concrete compressive stain of 0.003 at the extreme compression fiber.

Table 3 Rectangular Stress Block Parameters

RSB α1 β1
AASHTO 0.85 for f c' ≤ 27.6
0.85
LRFD* ( )
0.85 − 0.00725 f c' − 27.6 ≥ 0.65 for f c' > 27.6

Mertol et 0.85 for f c' ≤ 69 0.85 for f c' ≤ 27.6

al. (2006)* ( '
) '
0.85 − 0.0058 f − 69 ≥ 0.65 for f > 69
c c ( )
0.85 − 0.00725 f − 27.6 ≥ 0.65 for f c' > 27.6
c
'

* f c' in MPa.

The test results of eccentrically loaded columns were compared to axial load-moment
interaction diagrams developed by using these RSB parameters. The diagrams for the
two different concrete strengths are shown in Figure 8. The solid and the dashed line
represent the interaction diagram using RSB parameters specified by the current
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the proposed value by Mertol et al
(2006), respectively. Figure 8(a) indicates that RSB parameters specified by the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications produce conservative prediction for
concrete strengths up to 69 MPa. For concrete strengths beyond 69 MPa, Figure 8(b),
RSB parameters specified by the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
overestimate the capacity of eccentrically loaded HSC columns whereas the predictions
based on RSB parameters proposed by Mertol et al. (2006) produce a more conservative
estimation.

8
 8000 Exp. 8000 Exp.
AASHTO
AASHTO Proposed

6000 6000

P (kN)

P (kN)
4000 4000

2000 2000
f'c =54 MPa f'c =114 MPa
ρ=4% ρ=4%

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
M (kN-m) M (kN-m)

a) 8RE1 and 8RE2 a) 17RE1 and 17RE2

Figure 8 Interaction Diagrams based on Different RSB Parameters

Conclusions
A total of thirty rectangular columns with concrete strengths ranging from 7.9 ksi (55
MPa) to 16.5 ksi (114 MPa) were tested under monotonically increasing concentric and
eccentric loading. The test parameters for concentric loading included concrete strength,
specimen size, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and amount of transverse reinforcement.
For eccentric loading, concrete strength, specimen size and two different load
eccentricities (10% and 20% of the depth of the section) were considered as test
parameters. The test results were used to evaluate the provisions specified by the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2004) for concentrically and
eccentrically loaded HSC members. The test results indicate that:

1. Using a value of 0.85 for the k parameter for concrete strengths beyond 69 MPa
could overestimate the load carrying capacity for concentrically loaded columns.
Based on the regression analysis of the collected data combined with the
experimental results of this research, the following equation is proposed to extend
the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for HSC.

 0.85 for f c' ≤ 69 

'
k =  f c in MPa
'
( ) '
0.85 − 0.003 f c − 69 ≥ 0.75 for f c > 69 

2. For concrete strengths beyond 69 MPa, RSB specified by the current AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications overestimates the capacity of eccentrically
loaded HSC columns. The proposed RSB parameters to estimate the ultimate
strength for NSC and HSC are:

0.85 for f c' ≤ 69 '

α1 =   f c in MPa
'
( ) '
 0.85 − 0.0058 f c − 69 ≥ 0.65 for f c > 69 
0.85 for f c' ≤ 27.6  '
β1 =   f c in MPa
'
( ) '
 0.85 − 0.00725 f c − 27.6 ≥ 0.65 for f c > 27.6 

9
 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the NCHRP project 12-64 and the
Senior Program Officer, David Beal. The authors also thank the contributions of Henry
Russell of Henry Russell, Inc. and Robert Mast of Berger/ABAM Engineers, Inc. who
served as consultants for the project. The contribution of Ready Mixed Concrete
Company and the personnel of the Constructed Facilities Laboratory are greatly
appreciated. The authors would also like to acknowledge the helpful efforts provided by
the graduate research assistants, Andrew Logan, Wonchang Choi and Zhenhua Wu.

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2004) AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Third Edition including Interims for 2005 and
2006, Washington, DC, USA.

Cusson, D. and Shah, S. P. (1995) Stress-strain model for confined high-strength

concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, No.3, pp. 468-477.

Logan, A. T. (2005) Short-term material properties of high-strength concrete. M.S.

Thesis, Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA.

Martinez, S. et al. (1982) Short-term mechanical properties of high-strength concrete.

Department Report No.82-9, Structural Engineering Department, Cornell University,
Ithaca, USA, 98 p.

Mertol et al. (2006) High-strength concrete for flexural design of bridge girders.
Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Short and Medium Span Bridges,
Montreal, Canada, in press.

Nagashima, T. et al. (1992) Monotonic axial compression test on ultra-high-strength

concrete tied columns. Proceedings of Tenth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Madrid, Spain, pp. 2983-2988.

Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S.R. (1998) High-strength concrete columns with square
sections. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 12, pp. 1438-1447.

Sharma, U.K. et al. (2005) Behavior of confined high strength concrete columns under
axial compression. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 267-
281.

Sheikh, S.A. and Uzumeri, S.M. (1980) Strength and ductility of tied concrete columns.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 106, No.5, pp. 1079-1102.

Yong, Y. K. et al. (1988) Behavior of laterally confined high-strength concrete under

axial loads. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No.2, pp. 332-351.

10